2015-05-19 1:34 GMT+02:00 Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk>: > Quoting Jérémy Lal (2015-05-18 19:33:34) > > 2015-05-18 19:19 GMT+02:00 Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk>: > >> Quoting Jérémy Lal (2015-05-06 14:08:09) > >>> 2015-05-06 13:31 GMT+02:00 Pau Garcia i Quiles <pgqui...@elpauer.org>: > >>>> The package.json file does exist: > >> [...] > >>>> /usr/lib/nodejs/uglify-js/package.json > >>> > >>> that's why it's usually simpler and safer to install original > >>> hierarchy with > >>> - package.json > >>> - lib/* > >>> in /usr/lib/nodejs/uglify-js, instead of changing it and not > >>> installing package.json. > >> > >> You are barking up the wrong tree, Jérémy: package.js *is* installed > >> at the *correct* location. Please read what Pau Garcia wrote. > >> > >> Problem is upstream script expecting to be installed in ~/bin/ and > >> assuming its library is in ~/lib/ > >> > >> I will extend 2001 to also cover hardcoded path to parse.js. > > > > What i was saying was that files were expected to be installed in > > /usr/lib/nodejs/uglify-js/package.json > > /usr/lib/nodejs/uglify-js/lib/* > > > > which is fine for me but i saw you prefer installing them up one dir + > > patch. > > Please actually look at the uglifyjs source package - or just read > closely the original bugreport - before you comment further. I think > you will then agree that your remarks are totally irrelevant here. > > Well, i actually did that. So if you've setup the files with the same tree as in source, that is /usr/lib/nodejs/uglify-js/bin/uglifyjs /usr/lib/nodejs/uglify-js/lib/*.js /usr/lib/nodejs/uglify-js/package.json
and a symlink /usr/lib/nodejs/uglify-js/bin/uglifyjs -> /usr/bin/uglifyjs there wouldn't be a need for the patches. As i said, i'm not questionning the dislike for keeping the original tree, i'm just saying that it avoids adding more patches. Jérémy.
